
^^ \ 






O ' . . s ^ ."v 


















°o 






0' 



''^ 



.0 ^ 






^Ov: 



^^ 






^^ 



P % 



4 o 












,0 -^^ 



-% .0 <, s • • , 



^. 



<-^ °°' .-^^ .„. 






&' 



■4 o 



o 









^o 






'7 






^^0^ 






o 




o V 









'J I- - 









0' 

























. -.'sw:^-.' y% ''¥<0S /'\\ 



^o. 



yy- A 






V >, 



^, 









,0 ,^, 



' • "^ 



•<-'\ 



f; ,c,^^^ 



A 






^^^'^ 







'^^^:^m>^^: 






<-2^' 



■\ 
















^oV 





^. 






'-^^ 







•^ 





>^ 






.^^^^^. 







r .^^'% ve^^-"" 



<^ 



^^' 



,0' 



\>- <T>- 



DEBATE 



B E T VV E E N 



GEORGE SYLVESTER VIERECK 

EDITOR OF "THE FATHERLAND" 
NEW YORK 

AND 

CECIL CHESTERTON 

EDITOR OF "THE NEW WITNESS" 
LONDON 

ON 

''WHETHER THE CAUSE OF GERMANY 
OR THAT OF THE ALLIED 
POWERS IS JUST" . 



CHAIRMEN 

PROF. WILLIAM R. SHEPHERD OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

AND 

LOUIS II. VVETMORE 



CORT THEATRE, JANUARY 17th, 1915 



PUBLISHED BY THE FATHERLAND CORPORATION 
1123 BROADWA\^ NEW YORK CITY 






Copyright, 191 S 
Bv THt Fatherland Corporation 



PART ONE. 

i\lR. Wetineore: Ladies and gentlemen: This debate has 
been arranged, because we are all very anxious to hear the vie^vs 
and opinions of the two representative gentlemen who will ad- 
dress you on the momentous question of "Whether the cause 
of Germany or that of the Allies is just." Mr. Chesterton who 
will open the discussion is an ardent advocate of the English 
side. He is the editor of the London weekly, "The New Wit- 
ness," and is in a position to speak with authority, reflecting the 
English opinion on the subject. 

Mr. Viereck represents the German side and is equally well 
known as a competent authorit}' on the question which is under 
debate to-night. He is well known as an author and as the 
editor of "The Fatherland." 

The speakers will each occupy half an hour expounding 
their views and will then have an opportunity of refuting, if 
possible, each other's arginnents. 

Professor Shepherd will now address the meeting. 

Professor Shepherd: Ladies and gentlemen: On a verv 
dark and stormy night, an old negro was riding tlirough a forest 
tr3ang to find his way by the flashes of lightning. Terrified by 
the peals of thunder, he cried out: "Oh, Lord, if it is all the 
same to you, let us have a little less noise and a little more light." 

We who desire to bring a fair mind to the discussion of 
the present war certainly wish to have as much light as possible : 
the light of truth, the light of accuracy, the light of honestv, 
and not the noise of accusations, of controversv. We want 
to know what is true, what is just and what is reasonable. 
We must be able to sec all around the subject of inquiry. 
We must get our information from all sources, and not onlv 
from one. We must consider the weight of testimony. We must 
be in a position to ascertain that which is true, that which is 
reliable, that on which we can pin our faith. 

This evening we shall hear two champions, one for the 
larger number of allies, and one for the smaller. Of these 



two sets of allies events point toward one of each a.s repre- 
sentative of the rest. 

Mr. Mereck, whose name is well known to jou, is an author 
of great repute. He is to brc;uk a lance for Germany. Mr. 
Chesterton, whose name comes heralded to us across the seas, 
is the champion of the English side. Mr. Wetmore and I are 
the seconds in this international joust. 

In order to be perfectly fair in this matter, when the 
champion of the larger group of allies speaks the second for 
the smaller group will hold the chair, and when the champion 
for the latter speaks, the second for the former will hold the 
chair. You may be sure, therefore, that there is enough hostile 
attention behind each of the speakers to keep him on his guard. 
(Applmise.) 

Mr. Chestkrtox : When I think of the considerable re- 
sponsibility which I have taken upon myself in coming here 
to plead before an American audience the cause of mj country 
in this, perhaps, the greatest, and certainly the most mo- 
mentous, struggle in which we have ever been engaged, I 
recognize that I suffer from the fairly legitimate disadvan- 
tage of being a member of another nation. And yet, in coming 
here, I am exercising a right wjiieh, I think, is international, 
the right of placing before the imp;irtial tribunal of a neutral 
nation the case of my country. 

The subject of the debate to-night, whether the cause of 
Germany — or, as Mr. Shepherd says, we ought to say the 
Germanic allies — or the cause of the Allied powers: England, 
France, Rvissia, Belgium and Servia is just — 

{Ironical cries of '''Japan!'') 

I am glad that Japan is so popular in this assembly ! 
{Laughter). Well, the controversy is as to which cause is 
just, and in order to decide that it is necessary for us first of 
all to agree on a definition of justice, and I was not sure whether 
Mr. ^ iereck and I could come to an agreement of first princi- 
ples as to the relation between men and men and betAvecn 
nations and nations. Tt is obviously not easy to come to such 
an agreement. This, tluji. was another difficulty from which, 
to some extent, I felt I should suffer, but which I think I have 
managed to overcome. 

It so happened that I was looking through a very valuable 



work of reference, "The World Almanac," and I found there 
exactly the thing I wanted. I hold in my hand a "scrap of 
paper." Nevertheless, it is a very valuable scrap and expresses, 
in immeasurably lucid words those principles of public justice 
and public policy, which I am quite willing to accept as the 
basis of this discussion. The proclamation runs as follows: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all men 
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 
with certain unalienable rights ; that among these there are life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these 
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their 
just powers from the consent of the governed." (Applause.) 

If Mr. Viereck will accept that as the basis of the dis- 
cussion I will, and I am sure the audience will accept that 
basis because as you know, these words are taken from the 
Declaration of Independence. I may assume we may take that 
as the foundation. 

I now turn to the question before us, the question of the 
justice of the war. As you know the very beginning of the 
controversy which led to this war, turned upon certain demands 
made by the Austrian Empire upon the Kingdom of Servia. 
Those demands were consequent upon the assassination of 
the Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria in the capital 
of the Austrian province of Bosnia. Bosnia was a part of 
the Turkish Empire up to about seven years ago. It was 
then in flagrant defiance of treaty and public faith annexed 
to the Austrian Empire. That pact caused great discontent in 
the Bosnian province, and there was felt in Servia a natural 
sympathy — for the Servians and Bosnians are mostly of the 
same race and religion — with the discontentedness of the Bos- 
nian province. The Austrian Archduke was murdered in Bosnia 
by Bosnians — that is, Austrian subjects. That murder, of 
course, nobody would wish to speak of but in terms of the 
strongest odium and reprobation. But Austria put this for- 
ward as a cause of war. Austria had stated in a note to the 
army and various publications to the Allies, and the German 
Government has stated in a White Paper and elsewhere, that 
Servian official persons connected with the Servian Government 
were in some way concerned in that assassination. The Aus- 
trian Government says it has in its possession evidence and 



6 

proofs of that complicity. I want to ask you why tliat evi- 
dence is not published. If the Austrian Government has the 
})roof in its possession, it should l)e published and put before 
tlie world. The German Govermnent shows no hesitation in 
publishing any documents which it thinks may be useful to it. 
I ask for those documents. 

Before that matter became acute, Sir Edward Grey made 
the very reasonable suggestion that these proofs should be pro- 
duced, before Austria presented her ultimatum. That demand 
was refused. I say that, unless due evidence is produced, Aus- 
tria stands merely in the position of the accuser. In that 
status, Austria sent the ultimatum to Servia. Austria waited 
a month before doing so, and it is a notorious fact that during 
that month she replenished her arsenals and prepared for war. 
Her ultimatum was to be acce})ted within forty-eight hours, and 
certain concessions were to be made. Those concessions were 
on the face of them inconsistent with the existence of Servia 
as an independent nation. The Servians should practically 
acknowledge its responsibility for a murder they repudiate all 
responsibility for. The Servian Government should suppress 
any })apers whicli spoke in a hostile spirit of the Austrian 
Government, which the Servian Government, as constituted, had 
no power to do — no more power than your or my government. 
{Applause). 

Another astounding demand could only have been meant to 
make it impossible for Servia to accept it. It was that certain 
officers of the Servian army and government, whom Austria 
should subsequently name, should be dismissed from the public 
service. If the Austrian Government had proof of complicity 
of officers in the assassination, why did she not name them? 
What independent nation would exist for a moment, if another 
government thought itself entitled to tell them to dismiss this 
or that officer from its army? That was the demand made. 

lict me -suggest to you something of a parallel case. I have 
acknowledged that there was great sympathy in Servia for the 
grievances of the inhabitants of Bosnia. In the same way 
there has been in this country a very great sympathy indeed 
with the grievances of the Irish. Now suppose that on the 
occurrence of the Phoenix Park murders the English Govern- 
ment had said without proof, on its own assertion, that Amcr- 



icans had been involved in the Irish plot and, on the strength 
of that unsupported assertion, England had asked America to 
put a Pro-English and Anti-Irish declaration in the public 
journals, to suppress all Irish patriotic societies and all Irish 
Nationalist papers, and to dismiss from the service of the 
United States certain men Ave would subsequently name, whom 
we suspected of feeling sympathy with the grievances of Ireland. 
What would yt>ii have said if we had asked you to accept 
in fort3^-eight hours, without remonstrance or modification, to 
accept every word of it? Of course, in twenty-four hours tlie 
British Ambassador would receive his passport and the Amer- 
ican fleet would have been ready for action. Of course, there 
is one distinction between the two cases. Yours is a great 
nation and Servia is a small nation. You may think that makes 
a difference. That is the German view — expressly set forward 
in the German White Book — that a great power must not be 
asked to accept public arbitrament "as if it were a little 
Balkan state." You may, if you choose, say that there is a 
different justice for small and large powers. But if you do 
that, you will have to tear up this "scrap of paper," according 
to which all men arc created with equal rights. (Interruptions) . 

Chairman : This is a debate and not a discussion. The 
speaker has the riglit to make any remarks he chooses, and 
the audience has no right to answer him back. 

Mr. Chesterton : I have dealt with the first incident 
which incensed the original cause of the war, and have shown 
that in that particular it was a case of brutal, indefensible 
aggression of a great nation against a small. I now come to 
the events. Austria, as I said, demanded acceptance of the 
ultimatum within forty-eight hours, and Servia, under pressure 
from Russia, returned a conciliatory reply, accepted a great 
many proposals which, I think, must have been very humiliat- 
ing to Servia, offering to alter her press laws — so as to reduce 
her freedom to the German standard — and a number of other 
concessions, but pleading for a discussion on those questions 
to which she could not agree, without forfeiting her place as an 
independent nation. If anybody suggests that Russia desired 
war, my answer is that it is demonstrably not the case because, 
if so, she would have told Servia to throw that insolent ultima- 
tum into Austria's face. If Mr. Viereck says Russia promoted 



8 

that war, why did Russia not advise Servia to reject all nego- 
tiations? But then came negotiations. As yov. probably know 
some of the outlines, I will not go into details. England made 
proposal after proposal for a peaceful settlement, that the dis- 
pute should be referred to a tribunal consisting of four nations : 
France, England, Germany and Italy. That was refused by 
tlie Germanic powers on the ground that Austria is a big 
power. That being refused, England suggested mediation. 
That was also refused. At last there came direct communica- 
tion between Russia and Austria. Russia had made up her 
mind she could not allow Servia to be conquered and crushed by 
Austria, and I say that, if Russia had not taken up that 
attitude, she would have deserved the contempt of mankind. 
Russia was standing by the rights of a small nation, a kin to 
her in blood and faith. (Laughter). It is undeniable. [Laugh- 
ter). Siie was standing out for those rights. 

Negotiations began between Austria and Russia. Those 
negotiations had actually almost succeeded, when Germany 
finally declared war on France and Russia. {Laughter). She 
declared war on France and Russia before Austria. Austria 
did not declare war until nearly a week later. Therefore I say 
that it is clear that on tlie German Empire rests the respon- 
sibility of having forced this war, not only on the enemies, but 
on her deluded ally. Indeed I do not know that any nation 
has a better right to reproach the Prussian Government than 
its ally Austria, unless it be its ally Turkey. 

Germany having decided on war with France and Russia, 
proceeded, as you know, to violate the neutrality of Belgium. 
Belgium is a small nation whose security and peace had been 
deliberately placed under the protection of the powers of 
Europe. Every one of the great powers in Europe had sol- 
enmly pledged" itself to respect tlie neutrality and integrity of 
Belgium. Prussia — or Germany, as you call it — {Laughter) 
— it is really Prussia — {Laughter) — determined to violate tins 
neutrality, promising to indenmify her for anything she should 
suffer. I am proud that Belgian heroism refused that offer, 
and said it would stand by the promises given. 

Germany said to England : If you will break your promise 
to Belgium, so as to enable me to break my promises to Bel- 
gium, I will reward you with a whole lot of my promises. I 



think that it was the amazing insolence and indecency of that 
proposal which probably determined England to go to war. 
{Prolonged jeers and laughter). I say at once that, in my 
judgment, England ought to have gone to war whether Bel- 
gium's neutrality was violated or not. But I say that it is 
quite doubtful whether we should have gone to war Avithout this 
provocation. (Applause.) I need hardly trouble you with the 
excuses now offered. They were answered in advance. The 
German Chancellor himself said : "We are violating Belgian neu- 
trality. This is a breach of international law, and for this wrong 
we will pay compensation. Is there anybody who believes that 
a German statesman would make that speech, if he held any 
even presumptive evidence — if he thought it possible to per- 
suade people to believe that he held any presumptive evidence — 
that Belgium had in any way violated her neutrality? But it 
was the Prussian theory that no one cared for public morals ; 
that the strong could do exactly what they liked. It was only 
whether the opinion of neutral countries, and especially of 
America, was outraged that these excuses were put forward — 
as a potent after-thought. There was no military necessity for 
Germany to attack Belgium. There are 200 miles between 
France and Germany which Germany could have attacked. The 
sole reason for the violation of the neutrality of Belgium was 
that the attack on France might be treacherous instead of 
being honest. France, while fortifying her German frontier 
had left her Belgian frontier unfortified, because she trusted to 
the public faith of Europe which guaranteed Belgian neutrality. 
Germany shamefully violated that public faith, attacked France 
treacherously and now has the effrontery to plead her treachery 
as an excuse for her violation. It is as if I were to forge 
Prof. Shepherd's name, and when lie complained excused myself 
by saying that if I had not forged his name I could not have 
got into Mr. Viereck's office and poisoned his coffee! {Ap- 
plause.) 

I will not dwell upon the abominable treatment of the 
Belgians after their rights had been violated, as you are all 
familiar with the facts. The Prussian record in this respect 
is of a kind with all her dealings. Her policy of disregarding 
the rights of other nations is a Prussian trait which has been 
in evidence since Frederick the Great's time to the present day. 



10 

Frederick founded the greatness of Prussia by such a treach- 
erous attack on Austria as^Germany is now making on Belgium 
and France. Bismarck in his reminiscences confesses that he 
told his master — it was at the time when the looting of Den- 
mark was contemplated — that all his predecessors had stolen 
some territory from his neighbors. No wonder that we subse- 
quently find him forging a public document for the purpose 
of robbery! The German Empire is dominated by Prussia, 
and her policy is based on the Prussian principle of denial of 
justice. You may object that it is not quite fair to drag 
in this argument, because it is talking about the past. 
Mr. Viereck can hardly take that point. I am a student of 
his works, and I recall a poem addressed to the German Emperor 
in which he says, if I remember right, 

*^The Star of Frederick he thy guide. 
The God of Bismarck he thy shield!" 

I do not know what sort of God Bismarck had — I pre- 
sume a God who Avas easy-going in the matter of forgery ! 
(Jeers). But we know all about the Star of Frederick. You 
will find it in the Book of Revelations. "And the nature of 
the Star was called Wormwood; and a third part of the waters 
became wormwood, and many died because of the waters, be- 
cause they were made bitter!" (Applause.) 

The Chairman then called on ]\1r. Viereck. 

j\Ir. Viereck: When ]\Ir. Chesterton challenged me to a 
debate on the topic of the justice of the war, I was both 
})leased and a little scared, because I knew that in him England 
Avould put forward her most able champion. Nevertheless I 
accepted his challenge because I believed that the justice of my 
cause woukl atone for the shortcomings of its spokesman. Mr. 
Chesterton has not disappointed us. His speech scintillates 
with epigram. He takes logic and tosses it up into the air like 
a juggler's ball. Facts appear and disappear in his arguments 
like rabbits out of a hat. I feel, however, that poor Mr. Ches- 
terton labors under a serious disadvantage — the English cen- 
sorship. 

^^ En gland has heeii left in possession of the reorld's car. 
She may pour into it what tales she will." Thus wrote John 
Mitchel, the grandfather of the present mayor of New York, 



11 

an Irish patriot, in an English jail. What was true then, is 
true to-day. Just as England has encircled Germany with an 
iron ring of foes, so she has attempted to encircle the world 
with an iron ring of falsehood. {Loud applause) . The Eng- 
lish censor not merely suppresses the truth, but he actually 
forges the news. I make this statement on the authority of 
Mr. Herbert Corey, the correspondent of the pro-ally New 
York Globe. Mr. Corey says: ^^Some of the censors seem 
to have felt from time to time that America was not heiurj 
pr'opcrlij informed as to the conduct of the lear. So they luwc 
not only struck words out of dispatches, but have stuck words 
in.^' (Applause). 

Even to this day the English have not been officially in- 
formed of the sinking of the "Audacious." Who knows how 
many English dreadnoughts are slumbering at the bottom of 
the sea, where they dread naught, neither are they dreaded? 
The English policy of mystification has gone so far that Sir 
Edward Grey openly lied not only to the world, but to his 
own parliament and to the British people when he stated that 
there was no compact, formal or informal, of whatsoever 
nature, obligating England to come to the defense of France. 
So shocked were his colleagues in the Cabinet that two of its 
members, John Burns, the leader of the Labor Party, and Lord 
Morley, resigned rather than be participants in this fraud. 

A wave of h3^stcria has seized the English because they do 
not know the truth, because their minds have been poisoned. 
In some places the German wireless has smashed the iron ring 
of falsehood, just as German submarines have smashed English 
dreadnoughts. In England the ring still holds tight. Eng- 
land has always been able to hypnotize herself into the belief 
that her cause was righteous. England, no doubt, honestly 
feels that Germany and Austria are actually waging a war of 
aggression. In this country this question has been threshed 
out so frequently that it hardly seems worth while to cover the 
ground again. There are people in England who know the 
truth. They are the people who know Germany and the Ger- 
mans, and who can read Genmany's diplomatic documents in 
the language in which they were issued. I would like to ask 
]\Ir. Chesterton : Have you ever read a book in the original 
German language.'' Have you ever been in Germany.'' Or are 



12 

you in the position of your colleague, H. G. Wells who, when 
asked by Mr. Frank Harris : "What do you know about Ger- 
many and the Germans?" replied: "0/*/ you know, my son has 
a German tutor." 

Bernard Shaw, who has a touch of German idealism, is one 
of the few men in England who still dare to state the truth. 
He has stripped the mask from the face of the British Lion 
in his analysis of the French Yellow Book. His view is one 
which, I think, will be accepted by history. He tells us how 
the British Lion was prepared to pounce upon Germany ever 
since he realized that here was a new world power. The 
British Lion, he tells us, has made up his mind that no power 
shall be greater on land than England, nor as great on sea. 
When he heard the strains" of '"Deutschland, Deutschland iiber 
Alles," his mind was made up. 

The British Lion is a cautious animal. He does not like 
to fight his own battles. Germany will fight to the last Ger- 
man. England, it has been said, will fight to the last French- 
man. She has already fought to the last Belgian. England 
knew that Germany would not accept a challenge from France 
and Russia in spite of their repeated insults, unless she was 
sure of British neutrality. Hence the lie of Sir Edward Grey." 
Hence England's pretended friendship for Germany. Germany 
believed that England would at least remain neutral in a war. 
So when Russia reached for her hip-pocket, Germany struck 
back in self-defense. She delivered her ultimatum, and then 
the English Lion, with one mighty roar, sprang upon Ger- 
many. 

This is the outstanding fact. Germany declared war, but 
she did so in self-defence, even if England hypocritically con- 
vinces herself that it was a war of aggression. Germany wages 
war in self-defense and in obedience to her plighted word to 
her ally and comrade-in-arms, Austria-Hungary. The German 
Empire has never been accused of breaking her word. Germany 
has never broken a treat}^ unless that treaty was indeed a mere 
scrap of paper. And even then she did not tear it up until 
she was forced to do so by others. 

The German Chancellor said that Germany was doing wrong 
by breaking an international law. This proves that Mr. Beth- 



13 

niann-Hollvveg, at least, is not a Nietzscliian. He places neither 
himself nor his country beyond good and evil. The German 
Chancellor has a sensitive conscience — too sensitive, I fear. 

The German Chancellor also said that he knew England and 
France were prepared to invade Belgium, if Germany did not. 
Mr. Chesterton has chosen not to dwell upon this portion of 
the Chancellor's speech. Subsequent discoveries have fully veri- 
fied the Chancellor's opinion. You, yourself, Mr. Chesterton, 
have often dwelled upon the excellence of the German intelli- 
gence service. May we not assume that if the Chancellor said 
that France and England were prepared to invade Belgium that 
he did so on unimpeachable evidence.'* {Applause.) 

Documents recently found prove that the mobilization plan 
of France included both Belgium and Holland. I have myself 
published the maps of the French General Staif, and if you 
want to see them come to my office and I will show them to 
you. England threatened to invade Belgium even against the 
will of Belgium in case of a European war. In a conversation 
between General Jungbluth and Colonel Bridges, the former pro- 
tested that for any invasion of Belgium by the English the 
permission of Belgium would be necessary. The curt reply of 
Colonel Bridges was that the English knew it, but that, as 
Belgium was not strong enough to protect herself, England 
would land troops anyway. 

Now let us consider more fully the case of Belgium. If 
ever a breach of treaty was justified, it was this one. Xot 
only were the French and English prepared to invade Belgium : 
the Belgian Government conspired with France against England 
and Germany. Belgium, although a neutral state, had betrayed 
all her military secrets to England and France ; therefore, Bel- 
gium had violated her own neutrality. Germany was justified 
in her invasion of Belgium, in accordance with "the well recog- 
nized principle of the right and supreme duty to protect 
national safety." For these words we are indebted to the Eng- 
lish Embassy, which issued them in explanation of the seizure 
by England of two Turkish warships in process of construction 
in English harbors. 

Our Thomas Jefferson and your John Stuart Mill both 
agree that a nation under certain circumstances has the right to 



14 

break a treaty. It is immoral for a nation, as well as for an 
individual, to keep a treaty^ that endangers its entire existence. 
The treaty Avith Belgium, if it had been kept, would have 
amounted to a suicide pact on the part of Germany. {Loud 
applause ) . 

Let me give you another quotation, taken not from the 
World Almanac, but from the records of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. Perhaps you do not think much of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, for you have assured us 
only a few minutes ago that the only difference between the 
United States of America and Servia is one of size. (Laugh- 
ter). In \o\. 130, p. 601 of the decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, you will find the statement: "Or- 
enrnstanees may arise which wit not only justify the goirrn- 
vient in disregarding treaty stipuJ<ttions, but demand in the 
interest of the country that it should do so." 

Justice Curtis of tlie Supreme Court confirms this opinion 
by stating that no State could be deprived of its right not to 
execute a treaty without surrendering its independence. 

Let me also read to you a passage from a speech of the 
German Chancellor. I am willing to say that the case of Ger- 
many, in so far as Belgium is concerned, stands or falls with 
this passage : 

"Germany's position must be understood. She had ful- 
filled her treaty obligations in the past; her action now was 
not wanton. Belg"ium was of supreme military importance 
in a war with France; if such a war occurred it would be 
one of life and death. Germany feared that if she did not 
occupy Belgium, France might do so. In the face of this 
suspicion there was only one thing to do." 

This statement appears in the German White Book. 
(Pause). I beg your pardon, it does not. It is not a state- 
ment of the German Chancellor, but it emanates from the Eng- 
lish Foreign Office. It Avas published in one of the early 
editions of the English Blue Book, but has never been repub- 
lished since. 

Mk. Chesterton: "May I see the book.^" Mr. Viereck turns 
the book over to Mr. Chesterton. (Applause.) 



15 

The English have suppressed this passage in all subsequent 
editions, and it has never been published in the American 
press.* 

Let me refer to another authority, one which perhaps even 
you will be willing to accept. My quotation is not from the 
World Almanac, not even from the Declaration of Independence, 
but from Deuteronomy, Chapter 11, verse 26: 

"And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth 
unto Sihon, king of Heshbon, with words of peace saying: lA^t 
me pass through thy land ; I will go along by the highway, I 
will neither turn unto the right hand nor to the left. Thou 
shalt send me meat for money, that I may eat, and give ine 
water for money, that I may drink : only I will pass through 
on my feet until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which 
the Lord our God givcth us. But Sihon of Heshbon would 
not let us pass him : for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit 
that he might deliver him unto thy hand, as appeareth this day. 
And the Lord said unto me: Behold I have begun to give 
Sihon and his land before thee ; begin to possess, that thou 
mayest possess his land. Then Sihon came out against us, 
he and all his people. . . . And the Lord our God delivered 
him before us and we smote him and all his people. And we 
took all his cities at that time, and the women, and the little 
ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Only the cattle we 
took for prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which 
we took." 

Moses acting on very high authority took far more drastic 
measures than Germany when he found himself in the same 
predicament as Bethmann-Hollweg. In fact it must be said 
that, compared with the action of Moses in Heshbon, the mailed 
fist of the Kaiser rests gently on Belgium. The Germans are 
a gentle people. In fact so peace-loving arc the Germans that 
it is necessary from time to time for men like Treitschke 
and Bernhardi to remind them of their own unhappy history, 
of how for more than two thousand years from the days of 
the Romans to the days of the Huns, from the days of the 
Huns to the Thirty Years' War, from the Thirty Years' War 

* The Diplomatic History of the War, by M. P. Price. Charles Scribner's 
Sons, p. vii. Great Britain and the European Crisis. 



16 

to the Napoleonic invasions, Germany was the cockpit of 
nations, the Belgium of the world. 

The Germans are not brutal. They are not a belligerent 
people. I contend that Germany is waging this war against 
militarism. She is waging war against the militarism of Russia, 
against the militarism of France and against the maritime mili- 
tarism of Great Britain. It is always amusing when the pot 
calls the kettle black. But for an Englishman to accuse a 
German of militarism is to insult his intelligence. Do you or 
do you not know that England spends 60 per cent, more per 
capita on her army and navy than Germany.^ Do you know 
that France spends 38 per cent, more on her army and navy 
than Germany? Do you know that the peace strength of the 
Russian army is more than 1,290,000? Are you aware that 
the peace strength of France is over 700,000? Against these 
2,000,000 soldiers threatening in times of peace her eastern and 
western border, Germany keeps an army force of only 870,000 
men. If these eight or nine hundred thousand men are a match 
against two million, this is merely a proof of German efficiency. 
Vou are making war not against German militarism but against 
German efficiency. 

Conscription was forced upon Prussia by Napoleon, but it 
turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Price Collier, surely 
an unprejudiced witness, says: "T/j^ German army protects 
Germany not only from external foes, hut from internal disease. 
. . . It is the greatest school of hygiene in the xcorld. Gen- 
erations of Germans haiw been taught to take care of themselves 
nithout drawing a sword." 

German militarism is merely a part of her marvelous general 
efficiency. Every man in Germany is potentially a soldier, just 
as in Switzerland no man is permitted to vote who does not 
bear arms. German militarism has taught the German people 
the virtue of thoroughness. Applying the methods thus ac- 
quired to industry they have conquered the markets of the world. 
{Applause). Germany realizes this fact and is grateful to her 
army. She is grateful to every soldier. That is the reason 
that she honors the men who fight for her. But what shall 
we say of England? Mr. Chesterton, let me call your attention 
to an editorial in "The New Witness," in which you criticize a 
war order issued through the Home Office which practically 



17 

placed the defrauded wives of English soldiers under police sur- 
veillance^ — like prostitutes. This order was routed but, we are 
told, their position is still shameful. There are men at the 
front who have suffered, bled, risked everything for their coun- 
try, whose wives have not received remittances for two, three 
or six weeks. "TF/ia^" — I am now quoting literally — "i* the 
reason? It either lies in that stereotyped carelessness, in that 
contemptuous disregard for the poor, which unfortunatehj 
marks many well paid [^Brifish^ officials, or in an incompetency 
— a crass and inconceivable incompetency that is really stag- 
gering. " .{Ch eers . ) 

Here we get down to the roots of the war. It is a war 
between German efficiency and English inefficiency, between 
German Democracy and the Feudalism of Great Britain and 
Russia. Look at the lordlings and snobs who officer your 
armies. In Germany every man who has equipped himself men- 
tally for the purpose may reach a commanding position in the 
ranks of his people's army. The German army is the most 
democratic institution in the world. General von Kluck is the 
son of a letter carrier, and Field Marshal Hindenburg is a poor 
country squire. 

The reason for German efficiency is due, in a measure, to 
her geographical position. Pitched in between two hostile 
nations, as Bismarck has said, she cannot afford to be lazy or 
idle. Compared with the Germans the English arc lazy and 
idle, some out of choice and others because they must. General 
Booth tells us that one-third of the English people is con- 
stantly on the verge of starvation. England grants her citizens 
the right to stai've. Germany grants to her citizens no such 
right. That is the difference between the German and the 
English conception of liberty. 

It was Bismarck of whom you seem to think chiefly in the 
light of a forger, who violently opposed your inhuman Man- 
chester School of Economics. "Let each man take care of 
himself and the devil take the hind-most." It was Bismarck 
who said that a state may be responsible not only for the 
things it does, but also for the things it does not do. He 
further says : "A state composed very largely of Christians 
must be permeated by sympathy for the old and sick." He 
urged Prussia to keep the sense of human dignity alive even 



18 

in her poorest workingnian. Do you know, Mr. Chesterton, 
that Germany spends 50 per cent, more a year on social justice 
than she spends on her army? {Prolonged applause). 

You speak of Prussian autocracy. Do you know that 
there are three republics within the confines of Prussia: Ham- 
burg, Bremen and Luebeck? Hamburg has been a republic 
since the Thirteenth Century, having lost her freedom tempo- 
rarily only during the reign of Napoleon. Prussia could easily 
have starved Hamburg, destroyed her commerce and driven her 
sons into exile. She could have done to Hamburg what Eng- 
land did to Ireland. (Cheers). To-day Hamburg has one of 
the largest ports in the world, outstripping both liOndon and 
Liverpool. Dock laborers work by the week in Hamburg, by 
the day in Antwerp, and by the hour in London. This throws 
a light on the difference of conditions between Germany and 
England. I will not speak of Ireland. That would be a tale 
too pitiful to be told. England's policy toward Ireland illus- 
trates her championship of the weaker nations. Let me read 
to you a passage from a recent book by Sir Roger Casement 
whose name, I am sure, is not unknown to you : 

"The rest of the writer's task nmst be essayed, not with 
the author's pen, but with the rifles of the Irish volunteers. 
.... The crippling of the British fleet will mean a joint Irish- 
German invasion of Ireland, and every Irishman able to join 
such an army of deliverance nuist be ready to-day." 
^y Germany will, if victorious, bring freedom to Ireland, for 
Germany is the country of freedom. The victory of Germany 
means a victory of the freedom of conscience and of religion. 
How are the Catholics treated in England? Compare the 
absolute liberty which the Catholic enjoys in Germany with the 
restrictions imposed upon the Church in your own country. 
Germany treats not only the Catholics well, but also the Jews. 
The last vestige of Antisemitism in Germany has been swept 
away by the war. You know what would happen if your Allies, 
the Russians, should win? A Russian victory spells pogroms in 
Breslau and Berlin. The first thing the Russians did in Lem- 
burg was to institute pogroms. The commander-in-chief of 
the Russian army issued a statement that Francis Joseph had 
abdicated as Emperor of Austria and was now merely king 
of the Jews. Hence Russia's war was a holv war against Israeli 



19 

England until recently treated the Jews with consideration, 
but what changes have come over your country since the war? 
Let me remind you of a few things which you yourself have 
written. {Turning straight to Mr. Chesterton.) Did you or 
did you not say in "The New Witness" that Sir Edgar Speyer, 
Schuster and many others of the great Jews, who made the 
wealth of England, should be sent to a concentration camp and 
put to some useful occupation, like wood-chopping, so as to do 
for the first time in their lives an honest day's work? (Mr. 
Chesterton: Yes, I did.) May I quote literally from "The 
New Witness": 

"Unfortunately, the many virtues of the Jewish race do not 
include tact and delicacy in dealing Avith Europeans. . . . Their 
manner often is insolent and offensive. To give Jews the con- 
trol over our honored Belgian guests, is an outrage .... not 
put upon them by the will of the English people, but by the 
stupidity of a Jewish financier who has been allowed to worm 
himself into the ministry." 

Did you or did you not write this because two Jewish 
women were placed on the Belgian Relief Committee in London? 

(Mr. Chesterton: Yes, I did). 

(Hisses). You may be right or you may be wrong. I, for 
one, do not agree with you, but if this is your opinion, and 
if you are the spokesman of intellectual England, then I can 
imderstand why your country should have formed an alliance 
with the country of pogroms! (Salvos of applause.) 

I now come to the conclusion, Germany is fighting for the 
liberty of all counti'ies. She is fighting for the freedom of 
the seas. England controls every waterway in the world. 
Even our own Panama Canal is guarded by her Naval Station. 
Slie insists that the Panama Canal be neutralized, yet hardly 
had the war begun when Colonel Goethals, Governor of the 
Canal Zone, Avas forced to wire to Washington for war ships 
to protect the Panama Canal from English breaches of neu- 
trality and English impertinence. 

LTnder the guise of making war on Germany, England is 
making war on all neutral commerce, especially the commerce 
of the United States. 

England claims that with her great navy she is the police- 
man of the seas. But if so, she is a policeman who makes 



20 

his own laws and changes them when it suits him. In the 
present war England has reversed every one of her traditional 
policies with regard to conditional contraband. If England 
wins, which I do not think she will, the fight will have to be 
fought over and over again, for no self-respecting nation can 
allow another to have the supreme command of the seas. 

As long as the German navy exists it forms, together with 
the American navy, a counterweight to the naval predominance 
of Great Britain, In case of England's victory no nation 
would be able to engage in ocean traffic, except by grace of 
Great Britain. That is why the fight will have to be fought 
over again, if not with Russia then with France; if not with 
France then with Japan ; if not with Japan then with the 
United States, (Applause and hisses.) If Germany wins, it 
means that all the waterways of the world will be open, free 
and neutral, including the English Channel. 

Germany thus is fighting in self-defense. She is fighting in 
obedience to her plighted word. She is fighting for democracy 
against feudalism, for efficiency against inefficiency ; she is fight- 
ing, above all, for the freedom of the seas, as against the Mari- 
time Trust of Great Britain. Thus she is fighting the battle 
of all nations, even of those — with the exception of England — 
who are now opposing her. If Germany's cause is not just, 
then, where in the world is there justice.'^ (Prolonged ap- 
plause). 



PART TWO. 

Professor Shepherd : After these very neutral remarks, 
I may be allowed perhaps to say a few words. Though a 
professor of history, I would not wish you to be under the 
impression that I know all the past. There is only one set 
of persons, so far as I have discovered, who appear 'to believe 
that professors pretend to know it all, and that set is con- 
nected with the newspaper form of journalism. When a pro- 
fessor expresses an opinion that is entirely in accord with the 
views of a newspaper editor he is a scientist. When he ex- 
presses* views at variance with those of the editor, he is a 
professor ! 

Acting in this latter capacity, all I have to say is I do 
not think the cause of this war is identical with any one of 
the several occasions hitherto mentioned. If you want to 
search for the real cause you will have to go back many, many 
years. We are but just beginning to know what caused our 
own Civil War. The men, also, who were responsible for the 
evil days between 1865 and 1877 we do not praise quite so 
highly as we did. A long time must elapse before we can get 
the proper perspective. If you imagine for one moment that 
you can find the real cause of this war in militarism, you are 
mistaken. If you believe that, because a country has a lot of 
soldiers it will want to try them out on its neighbors, then you 
might just as well assume that, because this city has a large 
police force, it will proceed to arrest everybody in sight. The 
causes of this war are not to be read in White, Blue, Gray or 
in any other kind of colored books or papers, except black ones 
which have not yet been published ! They do not lie in the 
action of diplomats and potentates. It is, therefore, a duty 
befitting vis as citizens of a neutral covuitry to suspend our 
judgment. We do not know and cannot know as much about 
the responsibility for the war as those nations do which are 
carrying it on. This fact, however, does not prevent some of us 
from styling ourselves the "Supreme Court of Civilization." 



22 

Why? Because we bave no immetllate enemies to disturb us. 
We can afford to philosophize, to moralize, to call one side or 
the other all sorts of hard names. The truth of the matter is 
that we are not innnediately threatened, and therefore ought 
to be benevolent to both, and hostile to neither. 

In this connection I would like to read a warning from the 
late Lord Roberts, which applies admirably to the state of feel- 
ing in the United States, as represented by the English press. 
I did not say that such was the true state of public feeling; but 
simply that which is represented by the English ])ress. These 
are the words of Lord Roberts, one of the finest of English 
gentlemen and soldiers: 

"INIav I give a word of caution to my countrymen against 
the unsportsmanlike practice of abusing one's enemies. Let us 
avoid what Kipling during the Boer War described as 'killing 
Kriiger Avith your mouth . . . . ' Let us keep our own hands 
clean and let us fight against the Germans in such a way as to 
earn their liking as well as their respect." 

That was a noble utterance. ]\Liy I ask you to preserve 
the same fairness of attitude toward the speakers.'' (Applause). 

oNIk. Ch ks'ikktox : After the very interesting and able 
speech of my opponent. ^Iv. A iereck, I feel it necessary to re- 
mind you of what this debate was supposed to be about. It is 
not about the Jewish problem. I have discussed that on other 
occasions, but I am not here for that purpose to-night. The 
very interesting subjects brought forward by Mr. A iereck are 
not the subject of this debate. It is whether Germany or the 
Allies have a just cause in this war, and I think not one-thirtieth 
of Mr. Viereck's sentences had any relation at all to this subject. 

As to the question of England's interfering with American 
commerce, I never allow myself to say one word about it. Your 
government and mine are engaged in a discussion of this mat- 
ter, and I am sure they will settle it in a friendly manner. But 
that has nothing to do with the cause of war. 

Nor is the quotation of Sir Roger Casement of any impor- 
tance. I should prefer the testimony of an Irish patriot who had 
not been taking English money for years as a British Consul. 

The English censorship is supposed to prevent my learn- 
ing the facts about the war. Evidently it is so, for I learned 



23 

for the first time from Mr. Viereck that all the British dread- 
noughts had been sunk by German submarines. I had not the 
faintest suspicion of that fact up to this moment. I am a 
little puzzled when I remember coming over on Tuesday on an 
English steamship and saw a lot of German ships detained in 
your harbors. 

iNIr. ^ iereck challenges me to say how Catholics are treated 
in England. I am a Catholic and so I ought to know. How 
iire they treated in Germany.'' They are treated (except when 
they are Poles) with some measure of respect because they 
beat Bismarck and made him go to Canossa. But has Mr. 
Viereck forgotten the persecutions of the Kulturkampf? Any- 
how this has nothing to do with who caused the present war. 

I will now deal with that small part of Mr. Viereck's speech 
that has any reference to this subject. 

I also want to say a word with reference to one question 
which has some relevance. Mr. Viereck told you that if Ger- 
many won the sea would be neutralized. I can only say that 
to anybody who has anything to do with the sea and has had 
some knowledge and experience of how Germany treats places 
that are neutralized, the promise is hardly reassuring. (^Laugh- 
ter.) Then Mr. Viereck says that Germany had never broken a 
treaty. It is true he added, after a pause, "unless it was really 
a scrap of paper." I think his conscience pricked him, for he 
hesitated after the "unless"'' — I tliink he was probably about to 
add "unless she very much wanted to do so." As a matter of 
fact for Prussia all treaties are scraps of paper. 

There is one point which has struck me. Mr. Viereck said 
nothing about the Eastern aspect of the war. You will remem- 
ber that I made a special and deliberate challenge to him to 
do so. I cannot believe that he would be guilty of anything 
so unfair as to keep back an argument favorable to him until 
I had no longer an opportunity of rebutting if, and I must 
therefore conclude that he has nothing to say on that subject. 

In regard to the difference between small and large states, 
I admit, of course, there is a great deal of difference between 
America and Servia, but there is no difference between their 
rights. What I say is that they have equal rights, and I say 
in the face of an American audience that the United States 



24. 

has not a bit more right than Scrvia. And if you say the 
opposite you are tearing up the Declaration of Independence. 
(Applause.) 

When Mr. Viereck said tliat Germany had gone to war in 
obedience to her pledged word, of course he meant her pledged 
word to Austria. That sounds plausible, but in fact it is 
wrong. By the evidence of the Blue Book, Germany declared 
war on France and Russia on August 1st, Austria did not 
until August Tth. It is quite incredible that the word Ger- 
many had pledged to Austria was to the effect she would go to 
war with Russia while Austria remained at peace. On the 
contrary, the evidence shows that it was Austria Avho was 
dragged into the war on account of having pledged her word 
to Germany. 

In regard to Belgian neutrality, Mr. Viereck is inclined 
to make his quotations a little stronger than the}^ appear in 
print, and then reads a speech of the German Chancellor that 
France and England would invade Belgium, and in another 
connection he leads us to believe that France might invade 
Belgium. Any one can say '"might" invade. The Chancellor 
had no reason to believe that France xcoiild invade. Mr. 
A'iereck says that France had troops on the Belgian frontier. 
Of course she had ! Every one knew that the German Govern- 
ment meditated a treacherous attack through Belgium. But 
those troops never crossed the frontier until England had vio- 
lated Belgian neutralit}'. Documents are supposed to have 
been discovered by Germany in Belgium showing an under- 
standing between the latter country and France and England. 
I assume that these documents are genuine, but that question 
should be raised, because Mr. ^'iereck said that the English 
censors forged. He also said something about the pot calling 
the kettle black ! It is therefore worth recalling that Bismarck 
forged documents to force on the war with France, and it is 
legitimate to wonder whether the Belgian documents are gen- 
uine, but assuming them to be genuine, Avhat do they amount 
to.'* Simply to this: that the Belgians suspected Germany of 
intending to attack them and took reasonable precautions to 
secure the support of the other parties to the treat}^ in case 
of such attack. If you think a man likely to burgle your 
house and consequently lock up your spoons, you in no way 



25 

debar 3'ourself from calling him a thief when he does burgle 
you ! 

I do not propose to go over the (juestion of Deuteronomy, 
first, because it refers to a very remote period, and second, be- 
cause there is no analogy between the two cases. There is 
no suggestion that Moses had given any "scrap of paper" to 
sign ! 

There is something plausible in ]Mr, A'iereck's argument 
about German efficiency and Knglish inefficiency ; in fact, I 
believe there is a great deal of truth in it. The English Gov- 
ernment is one of the least efficient in the world and I have 
had occasion to point that out. I have attacked the English 
Government on that score. The German Government is organ- 
ized for a single aim, while there are complications in the 
English system which do not exist in Germany. Ever since 
the time of Frederick the Great, Prussia has been organized 
for the single purpose of aggression. There are great ad- 
vantages to be derived from a complete disregard of morals, 
and long before Frederick this fact was well-known to pro- 
fessors of Teutonic "Kultur" such as cardsharpers, black- 
mailers, people that stole silver spoons. (Commotion.) Well, 
the Crown Prince of Germany does that! {Catcalls, hisses, 
loud cries of "Liar'' and "Shame.") 

Chairman : The speaker has the right to make any re- 
marks he likes, but you have no right to interrupt him in any 
form. 

]Mr. Chestkrtox : The fact that you gain advantages by 
disregarding morals was known long before. It requires the 
capacity of a child to understand that. What was also known 
was that, if a man who happens to be strong and powerful, 
goes about continually disregarding the rights of his neigh- 
bors, he may prosper for a time, but ultimately he will fail, 
because his neighbors combine against him, and that is the whole 
story of this war. The conspiracy against Germany is the con- 
spiracy of the police against the burglar. The very existence 
of a comity of civilized Europe is incompatible with a powerful 
military state acting on the Denial of Right and the Atheist 
system of morals which are the first principles of Prussia. 
(Applause and hisses.) 

Mr. Viereck: Mr. Chesterton complains that there was 



4 



26 

only one ])ertinent question raised by nic, and tlien proceeds to 
reply to half a dozen. The trouble with Mr. Chesterton is 
that he looks merely at the su})erficial asjx'ct of the'war, whereas 
I attem})t to ^o down to the roots of the matter. That is the 
diflt'erenee bi'tween the English and the (Terman temperament. 
{Chrppiny of lunids.) I maintain that there was not one state- 
ment in mv speech that was not rele\ant to the question and 
did not beai- out that (yei-many's cause was just. I have not 
replied to all of Mr. Cliesterton's questions. Some of these 
questions were answered l)y the audience. Some deserve no 
answer. ( A pplaiisc. ) 

Mr. Chesterton says that I have not referred to the Far 
Eastern question. How many historic questions am I to solve 
in half an hour.^ The evidence against the Servian assassins 
has been publislu-d not in any English White Book or Blue 
Book, but in the Yellow Book published l)y France. Complete 
accounts of the trial of the muiderers have appeared in the 
papers. But the sources of the war reach deep down into the 
centuries. The question as to who declared war is not of im- 
portance. The question as to who is responsible for the war 
is of the gravest importance. The spark to the powder maga- 
zine was applied by Servia, but behind Servia stands Russia. 
The Servians are not a livili/ed nation, even if the English 
choose to speak of them as heroic. 

England changes her opinions whenever it suits her con- 
venience. Not every one would care to be judged by a jury of 
Servians. Eet me remind you, Mr. Chesterton, that only a few 
years ago England herself refused to send a Minister to the 
court of the cut-throats of Belgrade. 

(Mr. Chestkktox: Tliat is riglit.) 

But now that Servia serves your interests it is heroic little 
Servia. It is only a few years ago that we heard about Congo 
atrocities. It was Belgium, then, that was unspeakable in the 
eyes of the English. English magazines were filled with pic- 
tures of boys and men whose hands and feet had been cut off 
by the compatriots of King Leopold. These pictures, no doubt, 
give the Belgians the idea of accusing the Germans of similar 
atrocities. (Applause.) In those days no one could speak of 
Belgium .without a sneer. But now it is "heroic little Belgium." 
I Let us remember that Belgium is the sixth largest commer- 



27 

cial nation in the world. She had a powerful army, and be- 
hind her stood England, France and Russia. Belgium is a vic- 
tim of England. Not onl}^ did the English betray Belgium 
into this war but they sent only a handful of soldiers to make 
the Belgians hold out when they should have surrendered. Even 
now England is starving Belgium by closing the seas to the 
transportation of food. England would rather starve a million 
Belgians than feed one German soldier. (Applause and Jiisses.) 

Germany knew that France intended to invade Belgium. 
Eveiy day brings new corroborative evidence to that effect. I 
have seen French mobilization maps in which Belgium and Hol- 
land are included. I place those at your disposal. I also place 
at your disposal the fac-similes of those documents in which 
your Col. Bridges threatened that England would invade Bel- 
gium under all circumstances in a European conflict, even 
against the will of the Belgian people. 

I did not say that the German submarines had destroyed 
all English dreadnoughts. I merely said that English dread- 
noughts had been destroyed by German submarines, but people 
who feed on padded Blue Books are apt to pay little attention 
to the omission of such a little thing as an adjective. 

Mr. Chesterton, you cannot approve of the methods of 
vour government. You are a rebel. You always have been 
against the government. You ought to be an Irishman. But 
if vou were, you would be with me and not against me. 

As an opponent of the government you naturally do not 
fullv understand the real motives that actuated the men in 
control of England. Perhaps I can enlighten you on the sub- 
ject. Let me read to you a passage from an essay which re- 
ceived a prize from the Royal United Service Institution, pub- 
lished in January, 1909, and written by a disting^iished naval 
officer. Speaking for England, he says: 

"We do not go to war for sentimental reasons. I doubt if 
ever we did. War is the outcome of commercial quarrels. It 
has for its aim the forcing of commercial conditions by the 
sword on our antagonists, conditions which we consider neces- 
sary to commercially benefit us. We give all sorts of reasons 
for war, but at the bottom of them all is commerce, whether the 
reason be the retention of a strategical position, the breaking 
of treaties, or what not, they come down to the- bed-rock of 



28 

commerce, the simple and effective reason that commerce is the 
life-blood." This explains the motives of England. (Applause.) 

You say that England has gone to war for justice. If that 
is so, why must you pick (iermany's })ockets.^ Why nmst you 
steal her trademarks.'' Why must you appropriate her patents.'' 
( Cheers. ) 

You say that I have read a statement by the German Chan- 
cellor and that I have over-emphasized the quotation. I am 
sorry I did not make myself clear. I did not read a quotation 
from the German White Book. The quotation I read was pub- 
lished by the English Foreign Office in one of the early editions 
of the English Blue Book, but was suppressed in all other edi- 
tions, because it justifies the case of Germany. {Applmise.) 

You cannot deny that Catholics are restricted with regard 
to public office and the celebration of their religious rites in 
your countrv. Even in Protestant Prussia there is no such 
restriction. If you must go back in the past and drag in 
"Kulturkampf," I can go back into the past and remind you 
of the time when England placed a prize of 20 shillings on the 
head of a wolf and a prize of 2.5 shillings on the head of a 
priest. {Cheers.) 

j\Ir. Chesterton speaks of Prussian aggression. Who kept 
the peace of Europe for forty-four years.^ {Applause.) Was 
it England? All of Germany's wars were defensive wars. She 
took Schleswig-Holstein when Denmark threatened to annex 
that State. Schleswig-Holstein was united with Denmark 
merely by the personal union of its ruler. Germany made war 
on France and took what France had stolen. In the words of 
your own Thomas Carlyle, '^The cunning of Richelieu, the 
grandiose steord of Louis XIV, these are the only claims of 
France to those German countries.''' 

I am surprised that you have not quoted Bernhardi. I 
understand that he is very popular with you. In Germany no- 
body heard of him until he was discovered by the English. But 
if you have taken our Bernhardi we have taken your Shake- 
speare. ( Heart}) laughter and hand clap ping.) 

You speak of Prussian aggression. Have you ever read 
Boucher, the French Bernhardi, who insists that France must 
annex Belgium ? Have you read Homer Lea, that Anglo-Saxon 
Bernhardi, who claims that Germany must be destroyed.'' May 



29 

I cull your attention to the much (juotc'd statcnuiit of the 
"Saturdjij Review": 

"There is not an Englishman in the world xcho xcould not be 
richer if Germany were extinguished.'' 

Germany, under the Prussian regime, acquired every one v 
of her colonies by treaty or purchase, not by treachery or by 
force. Every one of England's colonies was acquired by fire 
and sword, by loot and pillage, by force and by fraud. 

You speak of the lack of morals of Frederick the Great. 
We in America have a different opinion of Frederick. Let me 
read to you a sentence by John Quincy Adams which appears 
in a message to Congress, published in 1826. President Adams 
said; 

*'/« the infancy of their political existence, under the in- 
fluence of those principles of liberty and of right, so congenial 
to the cause for xvMch wc have fought and triumphed, they \^the 
United States^ were able to obtain the sanction of but one great 
and philosophic, although absolute sovereign in Europe for 
their liberal and enlightened principles" That sovereign was 
Frederick the Great. 

You, Mr. Chesterton, evidently have no conception of Ger- 
man morality or German idealism. England has not yet had 
a German invasion ; she will. We in America know the German 
invasion. Twenty million Germans have invaded this country. 
We know that they are not barbarians, for if they are we are 
barbarians, too. 

In the light of what I have said to-night you will perhaps 
understand the meaning of my poem to the Kaiser, that Prince 
of Peace, which so greatly puzzled both you and your dis- 
tinguished brother. Inasmuch as you misquoted me, may I be 
permitted to conclude my remarks with this poem: 

WILHELM II, PRINCE OF PEACE 

Prince of Peace, Lord of War, 

Unsheath thy blade without a stain, 
Thy holy v^rath shall scatter far 

The bloodhounds from thy country's fane! 



■^\ 



30 



Into thy hand the sword is forced, 

By traitor friend and traitor foe, 
On foot, on sea, and winged and horsed, 

The Prince of Darkness strikes his blow. 

Crush thou the Cossack arms that reach 

To plung-e the world into the night! 
Save Goethe's vision, Luther's speech. 

Thou art the Keeper of the Light! 

When darkness was on all the lands. 
Who kept God's faith with courage grim? 

Shall He uphold that country's hands, 
Or tear its members, limb from limb? 

God called the Teuton to be free. 

Free from Great Britain's golden thrall, 

From guillotine and anarchy, 

From pogroms red and whips that fall. 

May thy victorious armies rout 

The yellow hordes against thee hurled, 

The Czar whose sceptre is the knout, 
And France, the wanton of the world! 

But thy great task will not be done 

Until thou vanquish utterly. 
The Norman sister of the Hun, 

England, the Serpent of the Sea. 

The flame of war her tradesmen fanned 
Shall yet consume her, fleet and field; 

The star of Frederick guide thy hand, 
The God of Bismarck be thy shield! 

Against the fell Barbarian horde 

Thy people stand, a living wall ; 
Now fight for God's peace with thy sword. 

For if thou fail, a world shall fall ! 

(liisounding applause, cheers.) 



31 

Professor Shepherd: In bringing- this meeting to a close, 
I feci that, although the majority seems to sympathize with the 
German point of view, the fact has not prevented the cham- 
pions from stating their respective views with all the energy 
required ! I am sure that everyone will go forth with sympa- 
thies less acute than before, that one and all of us have been 
brought nearer to the attitude of neutrality which should be 
ours in this mighty conflict of our brethren across the seas. 
{^Ipplause.) 



:> {) 'I- 







k\"- 



-i- 



^\, ^;: 




-P 






s^°^ 













i/.^«.v^^ ^^^^% -^llii^ 



-'CS^v s^U^ '^WsM: ,^^% 






%" <- 

,-^ /^:.= ^.. % 









> 




^^Si^/ ^^ % '^^yc'^vfy ^ ^ 






-1^ 






V 



-0^ 







,:.^ ^ ^, .^^i!^. -^ _A^ . 



'^l'^' ^ 











W^ 



*<(r-,r.; 





oV 



^^-^^^ 






"°^ " 






DOBBS BROS. 

LIBRARY BINDING 

FEB 71 f'-^fe^ 

ST. AUGUSTINE 



lllSin,L,l?,r. CONGRESS 

lillillilttMII 

018 497 538 5 







